Topic: Jerusalem Post: Bitcoin is for terrorism (Read 4334 times)

As of the moment US dollars is the most widely used currency to purchase illegal goods, why not ban it instead? It is also relatively anonymous, possessing no definitive fingerprint like diamonds, can be easily laundered through a fake business.

My personal opinion is that some countries appear to be behind the elaborate attacks on their own people since they seem to benefit off them way way too much, they just take advantage of the opportunity to pass laws to monopolize the market further and so on.

The banks aren't always responsible, but why the bank bashing? Unlike the government, you get to choose your bank, and if you don't like any, don't use any at all.

bitcoins is not for terrorist, the banks do worse things

It's pretty hard to tell the positive story in a way that can be told in a establishment friendly newspaper or TV show.

If you can actually craft a story that works mail it. If you just want to mail them your positive personal view of bitcoin it probably won't do much.

+1

Fiat money without gold backing created a very strong instrument to steal people any time and use their money to finance wars.
If you don't recognize that fiat money was used to kill millions of innocent people and to finance genocide then you never studied history or you are doing history falsification.
Therefore fiat money is the most evil form of money. Did you found a solution to fix it ?

Bitcoin. It was never used to finance war and it is also not suited for it.
With bitcoin you can save your own money and the life of innocent people because your money cannot be used to kill them.

The founder of the IDF and one of the patron saints of the State of Israel might have disagreed with this not-uncommon misperception of history. Early settlers were quite aware that they were taking a land away from a people:

Groan..not this stupid map again.  I don't know how we're getting into this on a Bitcoin forum but that map is such nonsense I feel compelled to address it.

The first map in the series of four is most egregious. It suggests that, in 1946, nearly all of the land between the Jordan and the Mediterranean was "Palestinian." Land designated as "Jewish" in this map constitutes maybe five percent of the total. This map is ridiculous, not only because the term "Palestinian" in 1946 referred, generally speaking, to the Jews who lived in Palestine, not the Arabs, but because there was no Palestine in 1946 (nor was there an Israel.) There was only the British Mandate. Jews lived throughout the territory then occupied by the British, including, by the way, on land that today constitutes the West Bank (though in 1946 Jews did not live in Hebron; they were expelled in 1929, after an Arab massacre of Jewish religious scholars). The intent of this propaganda map is to suggest that an Arab country called "Palestine" existed in 1946 and was driven from existence by Jewish imperialists. Not only was there no such country as "Palestine" in 1946, there has never been a country called Palestine. Before the British conquered Jerusalem, Palestine was a sub-province of the Ottoman Empire. (And after the British left, of course, Jordan and Egypt moved in to occupy Gaza and the West Bank.) It could also be pointed out that even if the map was relabeled "Jewish" and "Arab" land, it would still be a lie. The white parts show only the privately owned Jewish land, but the green part does not represent privately owned Arab land - it simply shows everything else. In fact, over 75% of the land in 1946 was publicly owned, and all of that land within the Green Line became Israeli after the War of Independence.

The next map in the series is a rendering of the U.N. Partition Plan, which would have divided the British mandate into two equal parts, one part for Arabs and one part for Jews. But this neglects to mention that the Jews accepted this partition of Palestine, and that the Arabs rejected it. When Israel declared independence, the Arabs sought to physically eliminate the U.N.-supported Jewish state, but, to their chagrin, they failed. All that happens today flows from the original Arab decision to reject totally the idea that Jews are deserving of a state in part of their historic homeland.

The green sections of the third map do not show "Palestinian" land at all either, as there was no Palestine and the West Bank was annexed by Jordan - with full approval of the leaders of Palestinian Arabs - and Gaza was controlled by Egypt.

The fourth map is equally misleading in that it misrepresents which areas are under Palestinian control.
It also fails to mention that a very large percentage of the Arabs in pre-Israel Palestine had moved there due to the development of the local economy and land by Zionists around the turn of the century. Obviously not all...but substantial enough to mention which of course it never is.

Also, about 95% or more of the "refugees" actually fled their land willingly out of the urging of the Arab Legion, fear of being caught in the crossfire of the invading Arab armies, or fears of being massacred by Jews due to rumors being spread. This insinuation that unarmed Palestinians were driven off their land is just incredibly misleading and historically inaccurate. It does a disservice to the legitimate points made by gun owners regarding their rights.

This is really misleading mis-framing of the conversation that drives this false narrative......Jews (mostly secular) came in and bought up land legally in a place where no country existed, they developed it and the local economy...and built the foundations of a state before any Partition plan...the entitlement has been on the side of the local Arab population which insists that even land not lived on, used, or part of any country is by definition Arab land the moment the Jews build something on it. It should be noted as well that in the initial PLO charter the Palestinians said "we make no claim upon the West Bank or Gaza...it is not our land".....only when the Jews took control of those regions in a defensive war did they decide they wanted those lands...and that their previous identities as Egyptian, Syrian, Iraqi Arabs would now be exchanged for Palestinian identities and they began inventing their own history and spreading it throughout the world

Bottom line, this lying manipulative nonsense needs to be called out for what it is. Complete and utter propaganda with no reflection on actual history. If you want to have an intelligent conversation about present Israeli policy then there is plenty of room for disagreement. But make sure to investigate the truth in something before reposting it. Because in this day and age...people seem to believe any emotionally manipulative graphic someone puts up on the internet. Facts, people, facts.

This is going to sound politically incorrect, but the entire middle east is made of big-government, Islamic, theocratic states. Jews are not given any sort of freedom in that area, not to mention they are a hated (and were before this whole thing with Isreal) minority there. Given the huge amounts of land owned by Islamic theocracies, I sympathize with the Jews claiming a small parcel of land for themselves.

Also, much of that territory was gained after they were attacked at some point or other.

+1 Better yet, keep doing what we're doing: build legitimate business, keep our real identities and prove we are real, normal, non-shady people.

Thanks Mike, an excellent explanation.

I was referring more to Israeli terrorism in specific - i.e. claiming to want a two-state solution when every action says otherwise, "de-arabizing" Israel by destroying mosques and monuments, cordoning off Palestinians into safe zones, bulldozing Palestinian settlements (often leaving their prior inhabitants homeless) to build new Israeli settlements, Israeli soldiers beating Palestinian children in the streets, and, of course, waiting until the exact minute that classes change in Palestine (so thousands of children are out on the streets) to start a bombing raid. Much of this funded by the U.S.
Miko Peled ("The General's Son") talks about growing up in Israel and having no idea of the atrocities being committed on the Palestinian people until much later: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOaxAckFCuQ

However, you did a great job explaining the broader view of terrorism/state violence, and of course our friend Stef does an extraordinary job outlining these principles in some of his writings: http://www.freedomainradio.com/FreeBooks.aspx
(And it is worth noting that he accepts bitcoins on his website ) 


Does anyone remember that children's book, "Give a Mouse a Cookie..." ? It's the same way with nation-states. The first page of the book goes something like ... "If you give a mouse a cookie, he's going to want a glass of milk."

Terrorists don't need Bitcoin they can threaten or bribe bank employees in the 3rd world to accept wire transfers for them and launder money. If you're a criminal group of thugs armed to the teeth and don't at all care about prison or even death why would some silly finance regulations prevent you from getting money. If you have cells in N. America that need "activation" through funding they can just buy a card magstripe writer from Ebay, receive the ATM card dump via encrypted email, make the card themselves and withdraw all the terrorist money they want.

In psychology a victim of say, bullying often becomes the bully. Here do we see parts of Israel treating surviving traders with the same suspicion the Nazis treated Jewish bankers in particular prior to WW1?

Bitcoin has a very poor representation in terrorist areas at the moment (why?). The speculation is very possible but has no basis. Shame on them - yet more terrible PR for Jews and Israel.

I've added a new thread for anyone interested in the original subject rather than middle-east politics in general.

https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/bitcoin-terrorism-fud-discussion-sans-politics-181739

What if I told you those "evils" exist because the government enables them to exist?  For example: is killing evil?  Perhaps.  If someone goes on a killing spree and the police have to gun him down, is killing still wrong?  I don't know.  However, the government declares that killing is evil by labeling it "murder".  Thus, citizens cannot "murder", but the government can kill.  That's not a necessary evil; it's simply enabling evil.

The only necessary evil in this world is we, the people.  The government is nothing more than a proxy for us to pretend the evil we commit (for example, outlawing marijuana, thus making drug dealers evil) is acceptable.

And then we have to define evil:


Because that which is "moral" and that which is "malevolent" are completely up to the individual (specifically, up to cultures,) it is absurd to believe the government has any role in deciding what is evil and what isn't on a global scale.  After all, if the government is a necessary evil (which nobody can really define as evilness is not a universal concept, but a local one), would the government not commit evil acts and enable others to commit evil acts?  Thus, to rid the world of evil (again, a personal interpretation,) you rid the monopoly on security.  Even if you don't believe that anarchism couldn't work, could you imagine a world where people have the right to decide from the comfort of their homes which governments they follow?  As opposed to being forced into one government, a national government, in which you have no choice but to participate in or uproot yourself and find another government to live in (which is undoubtedly similar to the American government, or considerably worse e.g. state communism.)

But on the point of "necessary evil": if we cannot define what is evil and what isn't, and if that definition cannot always be consistent, it is better to adopt another term.  I don't believe the government is necessary, or evil.  I do, however, disagree with much that the government does, and many things governments love to do, such as wage war, are downright "evil".  These "evils" occur because 1% of the world controls 99% of people.  We should strive for a 1:1 ratio, where, on average, a single person will have as much power for a single person's life, their own.  To say anarchism cannot work because you don't see how it could work is a good start; at least you're not outright saying it's impossible.

Everybody should use bitcoin instead of fiat, Jewish and Arabic, Americans, Russians, Chinese, black and white.
If the governments cannot take any more the money of the people they cannot finance wars and it will be peace.

I dont think wheteher you feel for or against Israel is the point. I bet Israel and Iran would unite in an article critical of Bitcoin. The point is most every article and evey mention on tv about bitcoin seems to present only the most negative of its possibilities. Should we all establish second identities and start at least e-mailing those orginaztions back with the positive side of the story.

I can't believe it took that long.

Rape is an evil, but it is NOT a necessary evil. That being said, rapists cross the line.

Government is a necessary evil, rape, murder and child abuse are not.

In a perfect world, there would be no evil, however, the government is (in theory) a substitute for the evils they are supposed to prevent. It doesn't quite work that way, but as much as I try to think of how anarchy could work: It just can't (unless other evils cease to exist) .